IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


^' 


^< 


^o 


M 

11.25 


Ui|2£  Hi 
lit  12,2   112.2 


■It 


2.0 


-^    ;   , 


HiotogFaphic 

Sciences 
Corporation 


23  WIST  MAIN  STMiT 

WnSTtR,N.Y.  USSO 

(716)S72-4S03 


V^> 


'■. 


<if 


V 


^ 


4^ 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHIVI/ICMH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historicai  iVIicroreproductions  /  institut  Canadian  de  microreproductions  historiques 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes/Notes  techniques  et  bibliographiques 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best 
original  copy  available  for  filming.  Features  of  this 
copy  which  may  be  bibliographically  unique, 
which  may  alter  any  of  the  images  in  the 
reproduction,  or  which  may  significantly  change 
the  usual  method  of  filming,  are  checlced  below. 


D 


D 


D 


D 
D 


D 


Coloured  covers/ 
Couverture  de  couleur 


I      I    Covers  damaged/ 


Couverture  endommag^e 

Covers  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Couverture  restaurie  et/ou  pellicul^e 


I      I   Cover  title  missing/ 


D 


Le  titre  de  couverture  manque 


I      I    Coloured  maps/ 


Cartes  giographiques  en  couleur 

Coloured  mk  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  blacic)/ 
Encre  de  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noire) 


I      I   Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations/ 


Planches  et/ou  illustrations  en  couleur 

Bound  v.ith  other  material/ 
Reli6  avec  d'autres  documents 

Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion 
along  interior  margin/ 

La  re  liure  serrde  peut  causer  de  I'ombre  ou  de  la 
distortion  le  long  de  la  marge  intdrieure 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  se  peut  que  certaines  pages  blanches  ajoutdes 
lors  d'une  restauration  apparaissent  dans  le  texte, 
mais,  lorsque  cela  6tait  possible,  ces  pages  n'ont 
pas  6t6  filmies. 

Additional  comments:/ 
Commentalres  suppl^mentaires: 


L'Institut  a  microfilm^  le  meilleur  exemplaire 
qu'il  lui  a  6t6  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  details 
de  cet  exempiakre  qui  sont  peut-Atre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibtiographiq'je,  qui  peuvent  modifier 
une  image  reprcJuite,  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une 
modification  dans  la  methods  normale  de  f ilmage 
sont  indiqute  ci-dessous. 


The 
toti 


I      I   Coloured  pages/ 


n 


Pages  de  couleur 

Pages  damaged/ 
Pages  endommagtes 

Pages  restored  and/oi 

Pages  restaur6es  et/ou  pellicul6es 

Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxe( 
Pages  d6color6es,  tachet6es  ou  piqudes 

Pages  detached/ 
Pages  d6tach6es 

Showthroughy 
Transparence 

Quality  of  prir 

Qualiti  in^gale  de  I'impression 

Includes  supplementary  materif 
Comprend  du  materiel  suppl^mentaire 

Only  edition  available/ 
Seuie  Edition  disponible 


I — I  Pages  damaged/ 

n~j  Pages  restored  and/or  laminated/ 

r~T|  Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 

I      I  Pages  detached/ 

ryl  Showthrough/ 

I      I  Quality  of  print  varies/ 

I     I  Includes  supplementary  material/ 

I — I  Only  edition  available/ 


The 
posi 
of  tl 
film 


Orifi 

begi 

the 

sior 

oth< 

first 

sion 

or  11 


The 
shal 
TIN 
whi 

Mai 
diff( 
enti 
beg 
righ 
reqi 
met 


Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc.,  have  bean  refilmed  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Les  pages  totalement  ou  partiellement 
obscurcies  par  un  feuillet  d'errata,  une  pelure, 
etc.,  ont  6t6  film6es  A  nouveau  de  fapon  d 
obtenir  la  meilleure  image  possible. 


This  item  is  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  est  film6  au  taux  de  rMuction  indiqu6  ci-dessous. 


10X 

14X 

18X 

22X 

26X 

30X 

/ 

12X                            16X                            20X                            24X                            28X                            32X 

lire 

details 
ues  du 
:  modifier 
ger  une 
f  ilmage 


The  copy  filmed  here  has  been  reproduced  thanlcs 
to  the  generosity  of: 

National  Library  of  Canada 


The  images  appearing  here  are  the  best  quality 
possible  considering  the  condition  and  legibility 
of  the  original  copy  and  in  Iceeping  with  the 
filming  contract  specifications. 


L'exempiaire  film6  fut  reproduit  grAce  A  la 
gtnArositi  de: 

Bibliothique  nationale  du  Canada 


Las  images  suivantes  ont  At4  reproduites  avec  le 
plus  grand  soin.  compte  tenu  de  la  condition  et 
de  la  nettetA  de  rexemplaire  fiim6.  et  en 
conformity  avec  les  conditions  du  con^rat  de 
filmage. 


i6es 


Original  copies  in  printed  paper  covers  are  filmed 
beginning  with  the  front  cover  and  ending  on 
the  last  page  with  a  printed  or  Illustrated  impres- 
sion, or  the  back  cover  when  appropriate.  All 
other  original  copies  are  filmed  beginning  on  the 
first  page  with  a  printed  or  Illustrated  impres- 
sion, and  ending  on  the  last  page  with  a  printed 
or  illustrated  impression. 


Les  exemplaires  originaux  dont  la  couverture  en 
papier  est  ImprimAe  sont  filmte  en  commengant 
par  le  premier  plat  et  en  termlnant  soit  par  la 
dernlAre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration,  soit  par  le  second 
plat,  salon  le  cas.  Tous  les  autres  exemplaires 
originaux  sont  fiimis  en  commengant  par  la 
premiere  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration  et  en  terminant  par 
la  derniire  page  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte. 


The  last  recorded  frame  on  each  microfiche 
shall  contain  the  symbol  -^  (meaning  "CON- 
TINUED"), or  the  symbol  V  (meaning  "END"), 
whichever  applies. 


Un  des  symboles  suivants  apparaitra  sur  ia 
derniftre  image  de  cheque  microfiche,  seion  le 
cas:  le  symbols  — ►  signifie  "A  SUIVRE".  le 
symbols  ▼  signifie  "FIN". 


ire 


Maps,  plates,  charts.  etc./rp^y4^e  filmed  at 
different  reduction  ratios.  Those  ^o  large  to  be 
entirely  included  in  one  exposure  are  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  left  hand  corner,  left  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  frames  as 
required.  The  following  diagrams  illustrate  the 
method: 


Les  cartes,  planches,  tableaux,  etc.,  peuvent  dtre 
filmte  d  des  taux  de  reduction  diffirents. 
Lorsque  le  document  est  trop  grand  pour  Atre 
reproduit  en  un  seul  clichA,  il  est  filmA  d  partir 
de  I'angle  supArieur  gauche,  de  gauche  d  droite, 
et  de  haut  en  has.  en  prenant  le  nombre 
d'images  nAcessaire.  Les  diagrammes  suivants 
illustrent  la  mAthode. 


ty  errata 
sd  to 

int 

ne  pelure, 

ipon  d 


1 

2 

3 

32X 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

NGRESS,  ) 

cssion.      ) 


33d  Congress, 
2d  Session. 


SENATE. 


Ex.  Doc. 

No.  37. 


"N 


LETTER 


^^ 


FROM 


THE    SECRETARY    OF    STATE, 


TO    THE 


Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  communicating  the  rcpm't 
of  Governor  Stevens,  of  Washingtofi  Territory,  to  the  Department  of 
State,  of  June  21,  1854,  relative  to  the  property  of  the  Iludson^s  Bay 
and  Pnget's  Sound  Company  in  that  Territory. 


February  7,  1855. — Read  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 


Department  of  State, 

Washington,  February  1,  1855. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of 
yesterday;  and,  in  compliance  with  the  request  therein  contained, 
transmit  a  copy  for  the  printer  of  the  report  of  Governor  Stevens,  of 
Washington  Territory,  to  this  department,  of  the  21st  Juno  last,  rela- 
tive to  the  property  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  and  Puget's  Sound  Company 
in  that  Territory. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

W.  L.  MARCY. 

Hon.  James  M.  Mason, 

Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  Senate. 


Governor  Stevens  to  Mr.  Marcy. 

Washington,  June  21,  1854. 

Sir  :  'In  pursuance  of  your  instructions  of  June  3,  1853,  directing 
me  to  furnish  a  statement  oi'  the  property  of  all  descriptions  within  the 
Territory  of  Washington,  ;is  well  as  in  Oregon,  claimed  by  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  and  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company, 
and  to  present  a  fair  estimate  of  its  value,  I  have  the  honor  to  submit 
the  following  report: 

Upon  examining  the  subject  committed  to  me  for  my  views,  I  at 
once  perceived  that  a  broad  dilierence  would  exist  between  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  Stales  and  the  companies  in  question,  as  to  the 
value  and  extent  of  their  rights  and  possessions.  Claims  of  a  most 
extravagant  character  have  been  set  up  by  these  companies,  in  view 
of  propositions  which  have  been  made  to  the  government  of  the  United 
States,  to  acquire  by  purchase  and  extinguish  all  the  rights  and  claims 


REPORT  OF  GOV.   STEVENS,   OP 


of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural 
Company  within  the  territory  of  the  United  States,  whether  secured  by 
treaty  or  otherwise,  legally  acquired  and  held  by  these  companies. 

Tlie  claims  of  these  companies  are  presented  in  a  pamphlet  entitled 
"Extent  and  value  of  the  possessory  rights  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany in  Oregon,  south  of  tne  forty-ninth  degree,"  containing  opinions 
of  American  and  Canadian  counsel. 

In  this  pamphlet  it  is  assumed  that  the  possessory  rights  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  extend  over  the  whole  territory  north  of  tlie  Colum- 
bia river,  and  that  in  this  territory,  south  of  the  forty-ninth  degree  of 
latitude,  the  United  States  have  merely  the  sovereignty  with  a  naked 
fee,  encumbered  with  a  right  of  occupation  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany, which  is  vabd  until  extinguished  by  transfer,  and  would  bar 
ejectment.  It  is  also  assumed  that  the  farms,  lands,  and  other  pro- 
perty of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company,  to  the  full  extent 
of  their  claims,  are  fully  confirmed  by  the  3d  article  of  the  treaty  of 
1846.  The  Hudson's  Bay  Company  further  maintain  that  the  right  of 
trading  with  the  Indians  is  included  among  the  possessory  rights  which 
are  to  be  respected  by  the  terms  of  the  treaty,  and  they  declare  that 
"it  is  in  the  utmost  degree  improbablethat  the  high  contracting  pfirties, 
the  framers  of  the  treaty,  ever  contemplated  denying  the  company  one 
of  the  most  important  rights  it  possessed." — (See  leiler  of  Mr.  Tolmie, 
chief  trader  of  Hudson's  Bay  Company.) 

The  first  point  of  inquiry  is  as  to  the  validity  of  the  claims  thus  as- 
serted. 

By  the  treaty  of  1846  the  territory  south  of  the  49th  degree  of  lati- 
tude was  ceded  to  the  United  States,  or  rather  it  was  determined  that 
the  right  of  sovereignty  of  this  territory  which  had  been  claimed  by 
botii  governments  was  in  the  United  States.  It  will  be  acknowledged 
that  if  a  territory  is  ceded  by  treaty  the  right  of  the  State  ceding  such 
territory,  and  the  rights  of  individuals  and  corporations  derived  firom 
such  Slate,  are  wholly  extinguished.  The  rights  of  individuals  depend 
upon  the  State  to  which  the  cession  is  made.  The  obligation  of  the 
State  receiving  tlie  cession  does  not  extend  beyond  the  express  terms 
of  the  treaty.  By  the  treaty  of  1846  the  government  of  the  United 
States  pledged  itself  in  future  appropriations  of  the  territory  to  respect 
the  possessory  rights  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and  of  all  the 
British  iiubjects  who  may  have  been  at  the  date  of  the  treaty  in  the 
occupation  of  land  or  other  property  lawfully  acquired  within  Said  ter- 
ritory, and  also  to  confirm  the  farms,  lands  and  other  property  of  every 
description  belonging  to  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company. 

It  is  apparent  that  the  government  of  the  United  States  simply  pledged 
itself  to  continue  the  policy  which  it  had  invariably  pursued,  in  its 
successive  acquisitions  of  territory,  towards  the  actual  occupants  of  tfie 
soil.  In  the  9th  article  of  the  treaty  of  1794  with  Great  Britain,  it  was 
agreed  "that  British  subjects  who  now  hold  lands  in  territories  of  the 
United  States  shall  continue  to  hold  them  according  to  the  nature  and 
tenures  of  their  respective  estates."  In  the  treaty  of  cession  by  Spain  to 
the  United  States  of  East  and  West  Florida,  it  was  stipulated  that  pre- 
vious grants  of  land  by  the  Spanish  government  should  be  confirmed  to 
the  persons  in  yossession.    In  the  treaty  for  the  cession  of  Louisiana  by 


WASHINGTON   TERRITORY. 


France,  it  was  agreed  by  the  United  States  that  the  private  rights  and 
interests  of  lands  should  be  secure,  and  the  inhabitants  protected  in 
tiieir  property.  By  these  treaties  and  the  acts  of  Congress  t()unded 
upon  them,  the  United  States  has  acknowledged  that  certain  rights  of 

f»roperty  were  acquired  by  the  actual  occupation  and  improvement  of 
and  before  unappropriated  Irom  the  public  domain. 

The  terms  of  the  treaty  of  1846  clearly  show  that  the  United  States 
had  simply  in  view  the  continuance  of  its  established  policy  towards 
the  occupants  of  the  soil.  The  rights  to  be  respected  were  only  terri- 
torial rights,  for  the  treaty  declares  that  in  future  apjn-opritifiovs  of  the 
territory  the  possessory  rights,  &c.,  are  to  be  respected.  These  rights 
have  relation  only  to  the  ^^  appropriatioti'^  of  territory.  The  occasion  tor 
respecting  them  does  not  arise  until  such  appropriation  is  made. 

Again,  it  is  the  j^^ssessory  rights  relating  to  our  interfering  with  the 
appropriation  of  territory  which  are  to  be  respected.  The  term  "  pos- 
sessory" is  either  one  of  surplusage  or  limitation.  If  the  former,  which 
seems  to  be  the  view  assumed  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and  the 
counsel  whose  opinions  are  given  in  the  pamphlet  alluded  to,  the  mean- 
ing of  the  provision  is  that  all  the  rights  which  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany possessed  at  the  date  of  the  treaty  are  to  be  respected. 
The  effect  of  this  construction  would  be  to  admit  the  right  of  the 
company  to  make  laws,  to  have  civil  and  criminal  jurisdiction,  and  to 
have  the  exclusive  right  of  trade;  all  which  rights  the  company  pos- 
sessed under  their  charter  at  the  date  of  the  treaty.  This  provision  then 
would  invest  the  actual  sovereignty  of  the  country  ceded,  not  in  the 
United  States,  but  in  a  foreign  corporation. 

As  this  construction  is  manifestly  inconsistent  with  the  purpose  ot 
the  treaty,  the  term  ^'■possessonf  must  be  one  of  limitation.  The  effect  of 
this  limitation  is  clearly  determined  by  the  context.  The  treaty  pro- 
vides in  the  same  terms  for  respecting  the  possessory  rights  ot  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and  of  all  British  subjects  who  may  be  in 
the  occupation  of  land  lawfully  acquired.  The  precise  language  is — 
"In  future  appropriations  of  the  territory  south  of  the  49th  parallel  ot 
north  latitude,  as  provided  in  the  first  article  of  this  treaty,  the  posses- 
sory rights  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and  of  all  British  subjects 
who  may  be  already  in  the  occupation  of  land  or  other  property  law- 
fully acquired  within  the  said  territory  shall  be  respected." 

The  Hudson's  Bay  Company  stand  on  the  same  tooting  as  all  British 
subjects  already  in  the  occupation  of  land.  The  possessory  rights  of 
all  are  such  as  are  derived  from  the  ocaqiofion  of  the  land,  and  are 
hmited  to  them.  If  other  corporations  established  by  law,  having  simi- 
lar possessory  rights,  had  existed  in  the  territory,  the  language  of  the 
treaty  would  obviously  have  been  "the  possessory  rights  of  all  British 
corporations  and  subjects  who  may  be  already  in  the  occupation,  &c., 
are  to  be  respected."  The  express  mentionof  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany cannot  be  considered  as  establishing  a  distinction  between  its 
possessory  rights  and  those  of  British  subjects,  derived  from  occupa- 
tion in  the  absence  of  any  language  defining  such  a  distinction.  The 
plenipotentiaries  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  could  not  have  been  re- 
gardless of  the  interests  or  ignorant  of  the  nature  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company,  and  would  not  have  failed  to  secure  the  vast  rights  now 


REPORT   OF   GOV.   STEVENS,    OF 


claimod  by  trrins  ndmitting  of  no  doubtful  interpretation,  if  sucb  had 
been  their  purpose. 

The  circumstance  that  exjness  provision  is  made  in  another  article 
for  securing  the  interests  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company, 
cannot  be  regarded  as  indicating  a  distinction  between  the  rights  of 
these  companies,  or  betwf.'en  these  companies  and  indi'^iduals.  As 
lliere  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Com- 
pany is  an  inf()rmal  association,  and  has  no  legal  corporate  existence,  it 
seems  to  have  been  specially  mentioned  in  the  treaty  f()r  the  purpose  of 
securing  its  future  recognition,  notwithstanding  the  want  of  legal  for- 
mality in  its  original  inslitution. 

In  defining  the  possessory  rights  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  the 
United  States  are  to  regard  them  in  the  same  light  as  those  of  indi- 
viduals who  iiavo  actually  occupied  lands.  It  is  clear  that  the  pos- 
sessory rights  of  such  individuals  would  be  limited  to  actual  erections, 
inclosures,  and  lands  cultivated  and  improved.  These  rights  are  held 
by  mere  occupancy.  They  vest  no  interest  in  the  soil,  and  are  lost 
the  moment  such  occupancy  is  abandoned.  It  is  admitted  that  an  en- 
try into  possession  of  a  tract  of  land,  under  a  deed  containing  specific 
metes  and  bounds,  gives  a  constructive  possession  of  the  whole  tract,  if 
not  in  adverse  possession,  although  there  may  be  no  fence  or  inclosure 
around  the  ambit  of  the  tract,  and  an  actual  residence  on  only  a  part 
of  it.  But  it  is  conceived  that  the  term  occupation  has  a  more  restricted 
meaning,  and  is  applied  to  lands  and  property  actunlhj  imd  and  im- 
proved. It  is  in  this  sense  that  Blackstone  and  Locke  use  Uie  term  in 
treating  of  the  mode  in  which  titles  to  land  were  originally  acquired. 

When  the  established  policy  and  nature  of  the  Hudson's  Buy  Com- 
pany are  considered,  it  is  apparent  that  to  allow  them  to  claim  posses- 
sory rights  over  the  whole  country  north  of  the  Columbia  river,  and 
below  the  49th  parallel  of  latitude,  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  right 
recognized  by  the  United  Slates  and  all  civilized  nations  to  appropriate 
for  purposes  of  settlement  and  agriculture  territory  occupied  by  unset- 
tled and  sparsely  scattered  hunters  and  fishermen.  The  profits  of  this 
company  have  been  derived  principally  from  trading  with  the  Indians 
and  scattered  voyagers  and  hunters,  who  have  exchanged  the  products 
of  the  forests  for  their  goods.  It  has  been  the  policy  of  the  company  to 
discourage  agricultural  emigrants,  and  to  keep  the  greater  portion  of 
the  territory  a  mere  wilderness,  or  a  vast  preserve  for  game.  Vattel 
has  observed  that  the  cultivation  of  the  soil  is  an  obligation  imposed 
by  nature  upon  mankind,  and  he  and  other  writers  upon  natural  law 
place  but  little  value  upon  the  territorial  rights  of  people  sparsely  in- 
nabiling  vast  regions,  and  drawing  their  subsistence  chiefly  from  the 
forest.  In  this  view  it  would  be  difficult  to  distinguish  the  territorial 
rights  of  this  company  from  those  of  the  people  fast  disappearing  be- 
fore lli;.!  sleps  of  civilization  on  this  continent. 

In  estimating  the  value  of  the  possessory  rights  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Com[r,\\\y,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  these  rights,  being  simply 
those  of  occupancy  and  incapable  of  being  transferred  to  purchasers, 
must  terminate  at  the  expiration  of  the  term  during  which  their  privi- 
leges in  the  territory  exist  by  their  charters.  The  rights  which  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  had  in  the  territory  lying  between  the  Colum- 


WASIIINGTCIS    TERRITORY. 


bia  river  and  the  forty-ninth  parallel  of  north  latitude,  wore  not  derived 
from  their  original  charter,  which  gave  them  a  perpetual  grant  of  the 
fljllowing  nnmed  territories,  viz:  "All  those  seas,  straits,  bays,  rivers, 
lakes,  creeks,  and  sounds,  in  whatever  latitude  they  shall  be,  thiit  lie 
within  the  entrance  of  the  straits  commonly  calletl  Hudson's  slriiits, 
together  with  all  the  lands,  countries,  and  territories,  upon  llie  eoii^its 
and  confines  <'f  the  seas,  straits,  bays,  lakes,  rivers,  creeks,  and  smnids 
aforesaid,  winch  are  not  now  actually  possessed  by  any  of  our  subjects, 
or  by  the  subjects  of  any  other  Christian  prince  or  State." 

They  occupied  the  land  in  the  territor}'  south  of  the  l<)rty- ninth  piir- 
allel  of  latitude  and  north  of  the  Columbia  river,  under  the  authority 
of  a  grant  bearing  date  December  5,  1821,  giving  the  company  "an 
exclusive  right  of  trading  in  all  such  parts  of  North  America  to  the 
northward  and  westward  of  lands  and  territories  of  the  United  States 
as  do  nf)t  form  any  part  of  our  provinces  of  North  America  or  the 
United  States.  This  grant  was  given  for  a  period  of  twenty-one 
years,  fit  the  end  of  which  time  it  was  renewed  for  a  further  period  of 
twenty-one  years.  As  the  crown  has  no  power  to  renew  tin;  clinrter 
of  a  company  in  the  territory  of  the  United  States,  and  the  com[);my 
cannot  transfer  rights  of  occupation,  all  the  possessory  rights  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  will  be  extinguished  in  tlie  year  1863.  The 
question  addresses  itself  to  the  liberality  of  the  United  Slates,  whether 
a  broad  view  of  the  spirit  of  the  treaty  may  not  render  it  ex[)rdient  to 
disregard  the  limitations  of  the  grant,  and  to  concede  to  the  company 
the  same  perpetual  rights  as  to  individuals. 

it  is  pretended  that  by  the  fourth  article  of  the  trent}'  of  1846,  the 
lands  and  farms  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  are  con- 
firmed to  them  to  the  full  extent  of  their  claims,  and  that  this  provision 
vests  the  absolute  fi-e  of  such  farms  and  land  in  the  company,  subject 
only  to  the  right  of  purchase  by  the  United  States.  This  view  I  con- 
ceive to  be  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  terms  of  the  treaty. 

The  fourth  .article  of  the  treaty  is  as  follows :  "  The  farms,  lands, 
and  other  property  of  every  description  belonging  to  the  Puget's  Sound 
Agricultural  Compan}^  on  the  north  side  of  the  Columbia  river,  shall 
be  confirmed  to  the  said  company.  In  case,  however,  the  situation  of 
these  farms  and  lands  should  be  considered  bv  the  United  States 
government  to  be  of  public  and  political  importance,  and  the  United 
States  government  should  signify  a  desire  to  obtain  possession  of  the 
whole  or  any  part  thereof,  the  property  so  required  shall  be  transferred 
to  the  said  government  at  a  proper  valuation  to  be  agreed  upon  by  the 
parties." 

In  the  case  of  Foster  &  Elamrs.  Neilson,  2  Peters,  314,  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  carefully  considered  the  effect  of  a  provision 
in  the  eighth  article  of  the  treaty  with  Spain  of  1819,  containing  terms 
similar  to  those  of  the  fourth  article  of  the  treaty  of  1846.  In  this  case 
the  court  say  "  whatever  difference  may  exist  respecting  the  effect  of 
the  ratification,  in  whatever  sense  it  may  be  understood,  we  think  that 
the  sound  construction  of  the  eighth  article  will  not  enable  this  court  to 
apply  its  provisions  to  the  present  case.  The  words  of  the  article  are  : 
"  All  the  grants  of  land  made  before  January  24,  1818,  by  his  Catho- 
lic majesty,  &c.,  'shall  be  ratified  and  confirmed  to  the  persons  in  pos- 


6 


RKPORT  OF  GOV.    STEVENS,    OF 


session  of  tlic  lnn«]s  to  the  snmo  extent  thnt  the  same  grnnts  would  he 
valid  if  the  ttirilories  iiad  remained  under  the  dominion  of  his  r'^tho- 
lic  mjijfsty.  Do  these  words  act  directly  on  the  grants,  so  as  to  give 
validity  to  those  not  otherwise  valid,  or  do  they  pledge  the  faith  of  the 
IJnitecf  States  to  j);iss  acts  which  shall  ratify  and  confirm  them. 

A  treaty  is,  in  its  nature,  a  contract  between  two  nations.  It  does 
not  generally  eHict,  of  itself,  the  object  to  be  accomplished,  especially 
so  far  as  i-  operation  is  infraterritorial;  but  it  is  carried  into  execution 
by  the  sovereign  power  of  the  respective  parties  to  the  instrument. 

In  the  Unit(Hl  States  a  different  principle  is  established.  Our  Con- 
stitution declares  a  treaty  to  be  the  lawot  the  land.  It  is  consequently 
to  be  regarded  in  courts  of  justice  as  equivalent  to  an  act  of  the  legis- 
lature wiienevcn-  it  operates  of  itself  without  the  aid  of  any  legislative 
provision.  But  when  the  terms  of  the  stipulation  impart  a  contract, 
when  either  of  the  parties  engages  to  perform  a  particular  act,  the 
treaty  addresses  itself  to  the  political,  not  to  the  judicial,  department, 
and  the  legislature  must  excuse  the  contract  before  it  can  become  a 
rule  for  the  court. 

The  article  under  consideration  does  not  declare  that  all  the  grants 
made  by  his  Catholic  majesty  before  the  24th  of  January,  1818,  shall 
be  valid  to  the  same  extent  as  if  the  ceded  territories  had  remained 
under  his  dominion.  It  does  not  say  that  these  grants  are  hereby  con- 
firmed. Had  such  been  its  language,  it  would  have  acted  directly 
upon  the  subject,  and  would  have  repealed  those  acts  of  Congress 
which  are  repugnant  to  it;  but  its  language  is,  that  those  grants  shall  bo 
ratified  and  confirmed.  This  seems  to  be  the  language  of  contract, 
and,  if  it  is,  the  ratification  and  confirmation  which  are  promised  must 
be  the  act  of  the  legislature.  Until  such  act  is  passed,  the  court  is  not 
at  liberty  to  disregard  the  existing  laws  on  the  subject.  The  court 
then  proceed  to  refer  to  various  acts  of  Congress,  showing  that  Con- 
gress appear  to  have  understood  this  article  as  understood  by  the  court. 

Afterwards,  in  the  case  of  the  United  States  vs.  Perchman,  7  Peters, 
p.  86,  in  reviewing  these  words  of  the  8th  article  of  the  treaty  of  1819, 
the  court  \uAd  that  the  words  used  were  words  of  present  confirmation 
by  the  treaty  where  the  land  had  been  rightfully  granted  betbre  the 
cession.  In  the  case  of  Garcia  vs.  Lee,  12  Peters,  520,  the  court  re- 
viewed their  opinion  in  the  case  of  the  United  States  vs.  Perchman, 
and  say:  "This  language  was,  however,  applied  by  the  court,  and 
intended  to  apply  to  grants  made  in  a  territory  which  belonged  to 
Spain  at  the  time  of  the  grant.  It  was  in  relation  to  a  grant  of  land  in 
Florida  which  unquestionably  belonged  to  Spain  at  the  time  the  grant 
was  made,  and  where  the  Spanish  authorities  had  an  undoubted  right 
to  grant  until  the  cession  of  1819.  It  is  of  such  grants  that  the  court 
speak  wh^  they  declare  them  to  be  confirmed  and  protected  by  the 
true  construction  of  the  treaty,  and  that  they  do  not  need  the  aid  of  an 
act  of  Congress  to  ratify  and  confirm  the  title  of  the  purchaser." 

"But  they  do  not,  in  any  part  of  the  last  mentioned  case,  apply  this 
principle  to  grants  made  by  Spain  within  the  limits  of  Louisiana  in 
the  territory  which  belonged  to  the  United  States  according  to  the  true 
boundary." 

This  case  is  conclusive  as  to  the  point  in  question.     The  territory 


X 


WASHINGTON   TERRITORY.  7 

norlli  of  the  Columbia  rivfr,  bryond  the  forty-ninth  paralUU  of  Intitiidr, 
had  always  lK!on  claimed  by  the  United  States.  The  treaty  of  M^AG 
determined  that  the  true  boundary  was  the  forty-ninth  parallel  of  north 
latitude,  and  that  the  territory  south  of  that  parallel  belonjired  to  tla- 
United  Slates.  The  British  authorities  had  no  right  to  grant  in  that 
territor}'.  The  farms  and  lands  of  tiie  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural 
Company,  by  the  principle  of  these  decisions,  are  not  confirmed,  and 
the  "confirmation  promised  must  be  the  act  of  the  legislature." 

Both  of  the  companies  referred  to  claim  certain  rights  (li,^finct  from 
the  lands  actually  occupied  and  improved  by  them,  such  as  the  right 
of  felling  timber  in  the  forests,  and  the  right  of  grazing  large  tracts  of 
unenclosed  pasture  and  prairie  lands  with  immense  herds  of  cattle  and 
(locks  of  sheep. 

The  right  of  felling  timber  would  seem  to  be  limited  to  the  right  of 
estovers,  as  known  in  the  common  law,  which  would  give  them  simply 
the  right  to  use  timber  for  fuel,  fJjr  building,  and  farm  purposes,  on  the 
lands  actually  improved  or  enclosed  by  them,  and  would  give  them  no 
right  to  appropriate  timber  for  sale  or  exportation. 

Vast  herds  of  cattle  and  flocks  of  sheep  claimed  to  belong  to  these 
companies,  which  have  becom:;  totally  wdd  and  unreclaimed,  and  are 
now  as  truly  ycrcc  iiatune  as  the  native  buflido  and  deer,  are  suffered 
to  roam  over  the  territory,  eating  bare  the  pastures,  and  invading  thi; 
fields  of  the  settlers.     It  is  clear  that  in  using  unappropriated  lands  tl)r 

f)aslurage,  these  companies  should  not  have  the  exclusive  use  of  such 
ands,  and  should  be  restricted  to  the  right  of  common  pasture  known 
in  the  English  common  law,  which  would  give  them  no  exclusive  privi- 
leges, and  would  restrict  their  cattle  and  sheep  to  the  number  actually 
levavt  ct  couchant  upon  the  farms  which  they  have  enclosed  and  im- 
proved. 

I  have  been  guided  by  the  views  above  presented  in  seeking  informa- 
tion relative  to  the  property  of  these  companies  within  the  Territories 
of  Washington  and  Oregon,  and  in  making  an  estimate  of  its  value, 
and  now  jjroceed  to  give  the  statements  and  estimates  demanded  by 
your  instructions. 

These  statements  are  mostly  founded  upon  personal  observation,  as 
I  have  visited,  myself,  Fort  Colville,  Fort  Wallah  Wallah,  Fort  Van- 
couver, the  granary  at  the  mouth  of  the  Cowlitz,  the  Cowlitz  Farms, 
and  Fort  Nisqually.  The  gentlemen  connected  with  me  in  the  recent 
exploration  visited  Fort  Hall,  the  Flat-head  post,  and  Fort  Okanagon. 
The  remaining  posts  and  property,  it  will  be  observed,  are  inconsider- 
able in  character  and  extent.  I  am  indebted  to  Colonel  Isaac  N.  Ebey 
and  George  Gibbes,  esq.,  for  valuable  notes  descriptive  of  these  pos- 
sessions. 

The  principal  establisbment  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  within 
the  territory  of  the  United  States,  is  Fort  Vancouver,  on  ine  Columbia 
river.  This  is  the  parent  establishment,  whence  the  others  are  supplied 
with  goods. 

The  post  is  enclosed  by  a  stockade  of  200  by  175  yards,  twelve  feet 
in  height,  and  is  defended  by  bastions  on  the  northwest  and  southeast 
angles,  mounted  with  cannon.  Within  are  the  governor's  house,  two 
smaller  buildings  used  by  clerks,  a  range  of  dwellings  for  families,  and 


8 


REPORT  OP  GOV.   STEVENS,    OF 


fivo  two-story  Wfirrlionsos,  bosidrs  ofFicos.  Williout  llicrc  is  n  Inr^'^o 
warehouse,  at  present  hired  by  the  United  States.  These  are  all  built 
of  S(|iiar»!  logs,  frnrn«'d  together.  The  buildings  within  the  enclosure 
are  old  and  considerably  decayed,  only  the  repairs  necessary  to  keep 
them  ii>  tenrmtable  order  having  of  late  years  been  expended.  Outside 
the  enclosure  are  about  tvv(>niy  cabins,  occupied  by  servants,  Kanakas, 
and  Indians.  These  cabins  are,  with  few  exc(.'ptions,  built  of  slabs. 
Most  of  them  are  untenanted  and  left  to  decay. 

TIh;  lands  in  cultivation  about  Fort  Vancouver,  at  the  dnte  of  the 
treaty,  :lid  not  exceed  two  hundred  and  fifty  acres.  Since  that  time 
many  of  the  inclosurcs  have  been  broken  up,  and  lands  ibrmerly  culti- 
vated have  become  a  waste. 

Besides  their  broad  claim  to  the  whole  territory,  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  mnke  a  particular  claim  to  several  tracts  in  the;  vicinity  of 
Fort  Vancouver:  fust,  the  plain  on  which  the  fort  and  the  United 
States  barracks  are  situated,  with  a  small  plain  behind  it,  making  in  all 
a  tract  of  about  f()ur  miles  square.  Adjoniing  this,  above  Fori  Van- 
couver, they  claim  another  tract  known  as  the  "Mill  claim,"  two  and 
a  half  by  three  quarter  miles  square.  On  this  claim  is  a  saw-mill,  now 
in  operation,  which  has  been  built  since  the  treaty.  A  grist-mill  was 
erected  in  1836,  but  is  now  nearly  worthless.  A  new  mill  frame  was 
erected  at  this  place  in  1847,  but  has  been  never  completed.  At  this 
mill  there  is  a  storehouse  and  miller's  house,  both  built  of  logs  with 
shingle  roofs. 

In  the  vicinity  of  these  mills,  at  the  date  of  the  treaty,  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  had  about  two  thousand  acres  of  land  under  cultivation, 
with  farm  houses,  barns,  and  outbuildings.  Since  that  period,  the  cul- 
tivated land  and  inclosures  have  been  reduced  to  about  a  thousand 
acres,  and  the  buildings  have  been  left  to  decay. 

These,  as  far  as  I  could  ascertain,  embrace  the  whole  of  the  im- 
provements of  the  company  in  the  vicinity  of  Fort  Vancouver,  if  wt 
except  a  few  sheep-pens  long  since  abandoned,  which  were  at  one  time 
on  the  possessions  below  the  fort. 

I  estimate  the  value  of  the  erections  and  improvements  in  and  about 
Fort  Vancouver,  and  those  about  the  saw  and  grist-mill,  including  the 
mills,  dwelling  houses,  storehouses,  farms,  barns,  &c.,  at  the  sum  of 
fifty  thousand  dollars. 

The  business  at  this  post  has  changed  with  the  condition  of  the 
country  since  the  treaty,  and  is  now  almost  entirely  mercantile  and 
carried  on  with  the  settlers.  Comparatively  a  small  amount  of  Indian 
goods  is  now  imported,  that  description  of  merchandize  being  sent  to 
the  posts  in  the  British  territory  by  way  of  Victoria.  What  trade  with  the 
Indians  is  carried  on  here  is  the  ordinary  retail  trade  of  country  stores, 
and  for  cash.  The  amount  of  the  general  business  of  the  company  in 
this  territory  may  be  gathered  from  their  imports  during  1853. 

These  consisted  of  one  cargo  of  assorted  American  goods  from  New 
York,  and  another,  valued  at  about  .£19,000,  from  London,  paying 
duties  to  the  amount  of  nearly  $24,000.  A  considerable  portion  ot" 
these  were  sold  on  commission  at  Portland,  Oregon  City,  and  other 
places  in  the  Willamette  Valley. 

The  next  post  above  Vancouver  is  Fort  Wallah  Wallah  on  the  Co- 


.1 


WASHINGTON    TERKITORY. 


»V< 


I 


H 


lumbia  river,  ImIow  the  cntriincc  of  tlio  Sniikc  Tlirrc  uro  licrc  tlinr 
or  four  onf-story  ndobc  Ixiilditigs,  with  oHiccs,  niclosrd  hy  a  wall  ot' 
tlio  same  tualrnal,  somo  thirty-live  yards  on  each  side,  having  a  h.is- 
tion  nl  oiK^  an^lf.  It  is  ahiiost  wliolly  valueless  rxeepl  as  a  station 
whert!  horses  eati  he  kept  lt)r  tlu;  trains,  '.riiere  is,  indeed,  notne  trade 
with  tlu!  IndiiMis,  chiefly  in  cash,  but  not  enough  to  \varr;nit  the  main- 
tenance of"  the  post  l()r  that  j)urj)ose  alone.  The  f(>rt  is  in  very  indifll'r- 
ent  repair,  and  the  country  in  the  immediate  nc-i^dihorliood  a  desi-rt  ot" 
drifting  sand.  The  l()rce  at  this  post  consists  of  a  chief  clerk,  one  in- 
terpreter, two  traders,  and  six  men,  Canadians  and  Indians. 

Home  eighteen  or  twenty  miles  up  the  Widlidi  Wallnh  rivt-r  is  a  so- 
called  fin'm,  (tn  which  are  two  small  hovels,  eiich  consisting  of  a  singh; 
room  occupied  by  a  servant  and  an  Indian  employed  as  herdsman. 
There  was  formerly  a  dam  at  this  ])lai-e  li)r  irrigation,  but  it  is  b'-oken 
down.  Fi\'e  thousand  dollars  I  consider  a  large."  estimate  fl)r  the  value 
of  these  two  establishments. 

Fort  Colville,  upf)n  the  Columbia  above  Kettle  Falls,  is  next  in  im- 
portance to  Fort  Vajicouver,  though  far  inferior  to  it  in  ext«Mit.  It  is 
situated  on  the  second  terrace  at  some  distance  back  from  the  river, 
the  lower  terrace  being  in  part  flooded  during  the  freshets.  The  buihl- 
ings  consist  of  a  dwelling-house,  three  or  fi)nr  store-houses,  and  some 
smaller  buildings  used  as  blacksmith  shops,  &c.,  all  of  oik;  story,  and 
constructed  of  squared  logs.  The  whole  was  once  surrounded  by  a 
stockade,  forming  a  square  of  about  seventy  yards  on  e.ich  side.  This 
has  been  removed,  except  on  the  north  side,  whert;  it  encloses  a  narrow 
yard  containing  oliices.  One  bastion  remnins.  About  thirty  yards  in 
the  rear  of  this  square  are  the  cattle  yards,  hay  sheds,  &c.,  enclosing  a 
space  of  forty  by  sixty  yards,  roughly  fenced  in,  and  the  sheds  covered 
with  bark.  On  the  left  of  the  front  are  seven  huts  occupied  by  the 
lower  emj)loyees  of  the  company.  They  are  of  rude  construction,  an<I 
much  decayed.  On  the  right  of  the  sijuare,  in  the  rear,  at  a  distance 
of  a  few  hundred  yards,  are  three  more  buildings  used  f()r  storing  pro- 
duce. At  this  post  the  barges  used  by  the  company  for  the  naviga- 
tion of  the  Columbia  river  are  built. 

Besides  the  principal  establishment,  there  is  a  cattle  post  about  nine 
miles  distant,  on  the  stream  laid  down  as  the  Slaun-to-as,  and  a  grist- 
mill of  one  pair  of  stones,  three  miles  off  on  the  same  stream.  The 
latter  is  in  good  order.  Here  formerly  the  flour  f()r  the  northern  posts 
was  ground  from  wheat  raised  on  the  company's  farms.  The  mill  is 
still  used  by  the  farmers  of  the  Colville  Valley,  and  by  the  Spokane 
Indians,  who  bring  here  their  wheat  from  a  distance  of  seventy  miles. 
The  farm  at  this  point  was  once  pretty  extensive,  but  only  a  small  por- 
tion is  cultivated  at  present. 

Fort  Colville  was  once  the  post  of  a  chief  factor,  the  highest  oflicer  in 
charge  of  a  station,  and  here  the  annual  accounts  of  the  whole  country 
were  consolidated  previous  to  transmission  across  the  mountains. 
The  present  t()rce  consists  only  of  a  chief  clerk,  a  trader,  and  about 
twenty  Canadians  and  Iroquois  Indians. 

I  estimate  the  value  of  Fort  Colville  and  the  mill,  with  the  improve- 
ments, at  twenty- five  thousand  dollars. 

Below  Fort  Colville  is  Fort  Okonagon,  situated  on  a  level  plain  on 


10 


REPORT  OP  GOV.   STEVENS,    OF 


tlie  right  bank  of  the  Columbia,  a  littlr  above  the  mouth  of  the  Okma- 
kaino  river,  and  not  far  from  the  site  of  one  of  Mr.  Astor's  posts.  The 
fort  consists  of  three  small  houses,  with  a  stockade.  There  were  for- 
merly some  out-buildings,  but  tliey  have  been  suffered  to  decay. 
There  is  no  appearance  here  of  trade,  and  no  goods  are  on  hand.  A 
few  furs  only  are  taken,  and  the  post  does  not  probably  pay  its  ex- 
penses. 

Fort  Kontamie,  upon  the  great  bend  of  the  Flatbow  river,  and  not 
far  from  the  Flathead  lake,  is  an  inferior  post,  in  charge  of  a  Cana- 
dian a?  trad(T  and  postmaster,  and  one  Canadian  and  a  half-breed 
tmdcr  him.  There  is  also  a  post  called  the  Flathead  post,  east  of  the 
Flathead  lake,  on  on-  f  its  small  tributaries.  The  lliree  last  named 
posts,  in  connexion  with  the  right  of  pasturage  on  Clark's  Fork,  enjoyed 
by  the  company  in  common  with  the  Indians,  I  estimate  at  five  thou- 
sand dol!'.rs. 

The  above  constitute  all  the  posts  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company, 
situated  in  Washington  Territory,  east  of  the  Cascades,  and  north  of 
the  4Glh  degree. 

There  are  in  Oregon  Territory  and  east  of  the  mountains  only  two 
posts.  Fort  Hall,  at  the  head  of  the  Snake  river,  and  Boisie,  upon  the 
same,  nearly  opposite  the  mouth  of  the  Owyhee.  The  latter  is  merely 
a  stopping  place,  occupied  by  a  trader  and  a  few  Kanakas.  The  former 
i.s  a  more  important  one,  from  its  opportunities  for  trade  with  the  emi- 
grants and  with  the  Salt  Lake.  Lieutenant  Mullen,  who  visited  this 
post  in  the  w  iter,  t()und  a  chief  clerk  in  charge,  and  the  supplies 
limited;  it  is  o  ly  a  third  rate  post.  Considering  the  favorable  position 
of  these  two  pc   ts,  I  estimate  them  at  fifteen  thousand  dollars. 

West  of  the  L  scades  in  Oregon  Territory,  the  principal  post  is  Fort 
Umpqua,  on  the  Umpcjua  river.  This  was  destroyed  by  fire  two  or 
three  years  sincf 

The  other  po^  i-ssions  consist  of  a  house  and  granary  at  Champoes, 
on  the  Willame  j;  one  acre  of  ground  below  the  falls  at  Oregon  city, 
pui chased  from  n  American;  a  farm  of  six  hundred  and  forty  acres, 
on  Souvries  isl  'd,  at  the  mouth  of  the  Willamette,  with  a  house,  dairy, 
and  garden;  tlie  odildings  about  six  years  old.  The  old  buildings  at 
Victoria  are  of  no  value  whatever. 

1  estimate  the  value  of  the  last  posts,  lands  and  improvements,  at 
fifteen  thousand  dollars. 

In  Washington  Territory,  west  of  the  Cascades,  the  only  post  of  the 
company  of  any  importance  is  Fort  Niscjually,  on  lands  claimed  by 
the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company.  It  is  situated  at  some  dis- 
tance from  the  water,  on  high,  undulating  prairie,  and  is  a  cluster  of 
small  buildings  of  no  great  value,  within  a  st(jckade.  The  trade  here 
is  principally  with  the  settlers.  Besides  this,  there  is  a  granary  and 
about  five  acres  of  land  two  miles  above  the  mouth  of  the  Cowlitz 
river — a  tract  of  land  on  Cape  Disappointment,  occupied  by  an  old 
servant,  and  a  small  store  and  lot  of  ground  near  Chinook.  Fort  Nis- 
qually  will  be  estimated  in  connexion  with  the  property  of  the  Puget's 
Sound  Agricultural  Company.  The  property  at  the  mouth  of  the  Cow- 
litz, on  Cape  Disappointment  and  near  Chinook,  I  estimate  at  five 
thousand  dollars. 


WASHINGTON    TERRITORY. 


.11 


ex- 


I  i 


With  the  exception  of  Fort  Vancouver,  it  is  believed  that  none  of  the 
posts  above  mentioned  are  worth  maintaining  for  any  other  purpose 
than  that  of  holding  the  property  until  a  sale  can  be  efft;cted.  The  con- 
dition of  the  whole  country  is  completely  changed  since  they  were 
cstabUshed,  the  company  being  now  little  else  than  general  merchants. 
At  all  points  of  general  importance,  they  meet  with  competition  from 
our  own  citizens  ;  and,  whenever  it  will  repay  the  enterprise,  ihe  same 
competition  will  follow  them  elsewhere. 

I  do  not  deem  it  important  that  the  rights  of  the  company  in  the  ter- 
ritory should  be  extinguished,  on  account  of  their  undue  or  unfavorable 
influence  upon  the  Indians.  The  relations  of  the  company  with  the 
Indians,  though  not  less  friendly,  are  far  less  intimate  than  they  have 
been.  Even  the  more  distant  tribes  now  frequent  the  tov/ns,  attracted 
partly  by  novelty  and  partly  by  the  opportunities  aft()rded  for  earning 
money  by  labor.  Most  of  them  comprehend  that  the  influence  of  the 
company  has  departed. 

Although  the  company,  as  traders,  have  endeavored  to  secure  to 
themselves  every  advantage,  and  although  their  action,  in  some  cases, 
has  borne  heavily  upon  the  settlers  in  every  matter  between  a  white 
man  and  an  Indian,  they  have  sustained  the  white,  of  whatever  nation. 

In  this  connexion  I  deem  it  due  to  the  company  to  refer  to  an  inci- 
dent reflecting  the  highest  credit  upon  an  officer  of  the  company,  which 
occurred  during  the  winters  of  1846-'47,  and  the  particulars  of  which  I 
have  from  Mr.  Stanley,  who  was  a  personal  witness  of  the  transaction. 
The  Cayuses  Indians  made  an  incursion  upon  the  mission  of  Dr.  Whit- 
man on  the  Wallah  Wallah  river;  killed  Dr.  Whitman  and  his  wife, 
and  captured  several  women  and  children.  A  factor,  one  or  two  Cath- 
olic priests  and  Mr.  Stanley,  since  artist  of  the  expedition  which  I  com- 
manded, were  confined  at  Fort  Wallah  Wallah  by  the  hostility  of  the 
Indians.  As  soon  as  this  event  was  known  at  Fort  Vancouver,  Gov- 
ernor Ogden,  the  chief  factor  of  the  company,  immediately  proceeded 
to  Wallah  Wallah,  and  at  the  risk  of  his  own  life  redeemed  the  cap- 
tives with  goods  which  he  had  carried  with  him  for  that  purpose.  For 
the  expenditure  on  this  occasion,  it  may  be  mentioned,  the  company 
have  never  requested  or  received  payment. 

The  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  claim  a  tract  of  land  at 
what  is  called  the  Cowlitz  Farnis.  The  quantity  of  land  claimed  is  eight 
thousand  acres,  more  or  less.  According  to  the  plat  deposited  at  the 
surveyor  general's  office,  their  tract  contains  only  about  three  thousand 
acres.  Some  years  back  about  fifteen  hundred  acres  of  land  were 
under  cultivation  ;  but  of  late  years  the  cultivation  of  land  has  been 
almost  entirely  abandoned.  The  fences  have  been  allowed  to  go  to 
decay ;  much  of  the  hay  even  has  not  been  cut.  The  land,  however, 
is  of  excellent  character,  not  being  surpassed  by  any  in  the  Territory. 
The  improvements  and  land  I  estimate  at  twenty-five  thousand  dollars. 

The  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  claim  from  near  the  Nis- 
qually  to  the  Pu-yal-lup  rivers,  and  from  the  shores  of  Puget's  Sound 
to  the  dividing  line  of  the  Cascades,  a  tract  of  land  some  sixteen  miles 
by  fifty  miles,  containing  some  eight  hundred  square  miles,  much  of 
which  has  never  even  been  penetrated  by  a  white  man.  This  tract  is 
claimed  in  consequence  of  being  used  as  a  range  for  cattle  and  sheep 


12 


REPORT  OP   GOV.   STEVENS,    OF 


belonging  to  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company.  It  is  asserted 
that  some  five  thousand  cattle  and  sixteen  thousand  sheep  roam  at 
large  on  this  tract.  The  number  is  not  exactly  known,  and  is  prob- 
ably much  over-estimated.  The  sheep  are  said  to  be  mostly  under 
the  charge  of  shepherds,  but  the  great  proportion  of  the  cattle  are  now 
in  a  stale  of  nature.  These  cattle  and  sheep  have  furnished  important 
supphes  to  the  settlements  on  Puget's  Sound.  The  post  is  frequently 
visited  by  steamers  belonging  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  which 
carry  away  supplies  of  cattle  and  sheep  for  Vancouver's  island.  The 
soil  of  this  tract  in  the  vicinity  of  Puget's  Sound  is  inferior,  but  judging 
from  the  developments  made  in  other  portions  of  the  territory,  much 
good  land  will  be  found  near  the  mountain  slopes.  Estimating  the 
quantity  of  pasturage  required  for  the  number  of  sheep  and  cattle  said 
to  range  on  this  tract,  and  throwing  in  favor  of  the  company  the  grave 
df)ubt  whether  they  have  not  lost  the  ownership  of  the  greater  number 
of  the  cattle,  I  estimate  this  property  at  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand 
dollars. 

RecapUulation  of  possessions  of  the  Hudsoii's  Bay  Company,  and  the 
Pugeth  Sound  Agricultural  Company,  idthiii  the  IWritorics  of  Wash- 
ington and  Oregon,  and  estimates  of  value. 

POSSESSIONS   OF   HUDSON'S   BAY   COMPANY. 


Fort  Vancouver  and  mill $50,000  00 

Wallah  Wallah  and  vicinity 5,000  00 

Fort  Colville,  mill,  and  improvements 25,000  00 

Posts  on  Flatbow  and  Flathead  rivers,  and  Fort  Okanagon  5,000  00 

Fort  Hall  and  Fort  Boissie,  in  Oregon,  east  of  the  Cascades  15,000  00 
Fort  Um|)qua,  and  other  property  in  Oregon,  east  of  the 

Cascades 15,000  00 

Property  at  the  mouth  of  the  Cowlitz,  on  Cape  Disappoint- 
ment, and  near  Chinook 5,000  00 

PROPERTY   OF    THE     PUGEt's    SOUND    AGRICULTURAL     COM- 
PANY  IN   WASHINGTON   TERRITORY. 

Fort  Nisqually .* 150,000  00 

Cowlitz  farms 30,000  00 

$300,000  00 

I  have  given  the  above  valuation  as  the  most  which,  in  my  opinion, 
the  United  States  should  pay  for  the  purpose  of  extinguishing  all  the 
rights  of  these  companies  within  their  territory.  1  have  given  in  all 
cases  a  liberal  estimate,  and  somewhat  above  that  of  the  most  expe- 
rienced gentlemen  I  have  consulted.  No  obligation  or  imperative 
necessity  is  imposed  upon  the  United  States  to  extinguish  these  rights 
or  purchase  this  property.  But  the  United  States  are  bound  to  take 
imm(>diate  steps  for  making  the  confirmations  promised  in  the  treaty  of 
1846.     Commissioners  should   be  appointed   by  an  act  of  Congress, 


I 


WASHINGTON   TERRITORY. 


13 


I 


having  powers  and  duties  similar  to  those  conferred  in  pursuance  of 
like  treaty  provisions.  The  practice  has  been  to  assign  this  duty  to 
governors  of  Territories,  who  are  presumed  to  be  well  Htted  by  their 
public  position  and  their  local  knowledge  and  experience,  or  to  appoint 
special  commissioners.  It  is  indispensable  that  confirmations  should 
be  made  before  a  purchase  is  effected.  The  act  known  as  the  donation 
law  of  September  27,  1850,  granted  to  every  white  settler  or  occupant 
of  the  public  lands  within  the  Territory  of  Oregon,  being  an  American 
citizen,  or  having  declared  his  intention  to  become  a  citiz(ni,  residing 
within  the  territory  on  or  before  the  first  day  of  December,  1850,  and  who 
shall  have  resided  upon  and  cultivated  the  land  upon  which  he  had 
settled  ibr  four  consecutive  years,  the  quantity  of  one-half  section  of 
three  hundred  and  twenty  acres  of  land,  and  if  married  within  one  year 
from  the  first  day  of  December,  1850,  one  section  of  six  hundred  and 
forty  acres,  one  half  to  himself  and  the  other  half  to  his  wife. 

Many  of  the  chief  servants  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Compnny  claim  as 
individuals  under  this  law  the  very  tracts  claimed  by  the  company. 
The  tract  upon  which  Fort  Vancouver  stands,  to  the  extT?nt  of  six  hun- 
dred and  forty  acres,  is  claimed  by  a  chief  clerk  of  the  company  re- 
siding at  the  fort.  These  claims  have  been  made  with  a  view  of 
securing  the  lands  to  servants  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  even  if 
the  United  Slates  should  extinguish  by  purchase  the  rights  of  the  com- 
pany. It  is  important  that  the  extent  and  boundaries  of  the  lands  of 
the  companies  should  be  fixed  by  confirmation,  in  order  that  the  com- 
panies should  be  able  to  give  a  title  to  the  United  Slates  which  might 
bar  the  settlers'  claims.  The  commissioners  should  be  directed  to 
make  a  fair  estimate  of  the  value  of  the  possessions  of  the  companies, 
and  report  the  same  to  Congress,  as  a  basis  for  its  action,  in  case  a  pur- 
chase should  be  deemed  expedient. 

It  is  hoped  that  this  subject  will  receive  the  immediate  atlention  of 
Congress,  and  that,  while  all  the  obligations  of  plighted  faith  are  re- 
deemed, the  embarrassments  which  impede  the  settlement  of  this  mag- 
nificent Territory  may  be  speedily  removed. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

ISAAC  I.  STEVENS, 
Goveinor  of  the  Territory  of  Washington. 

N.  B. — I  enclose  copies  of  a  letter  from  W.  F.  Tolmie,  esq.,  agent  of 
the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Coirnany,  dated  D(?cember  27,  1853, 
protesting  agjiinst  the  views  presented  in  my  circular  letter  of  Decem- 
ber 20,  1853,  and  of  my  answer  thereto,  dated  January  9,  1854,  in 
which  those  views  are  maintained.  I  have  also  received  from  Chief 
Factors  Ogden  and  McTavish  a  reply  to  my  circular  letter,  as  afore- 
said, solemnly  protesting  against  any  invasion  of  their  rights,  and  reler- 
ring  my  letter  to  the  superior  officers  of  the  company  tor  the  necessary 
action.     I  regret  that  this  letter  was  left  at  Olympia. 

The  accompanying  report  of  Colonel  Isaac  N.  Ebe3%  as  to  the  value 
of  Fort  Vancouver  and  the  Cowlitz  farms,  gives  a  lively  picture  of  the 
conflicting  character  of  claims  to  land  at  Fort  Vancouver.  His  esf  iniate 
of  Fort  Vancouver  and  its  dependencies  is  $32,000. 


14 


REPORT  OP  GOV.   STEVENS,   OP 


Fort  Nisqually,  December  27,  1853. 

Sir  :  I  have  liad  the  honor  to  receive  your  communication  of  the 
20th  instant,  calling  my  attention  to  certain  views  entertained  by  the 
general  government  of  the  United  States  as  to  the  rights  and  privileges 
secured  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricul- 
tural Company  by  the  treaty  ratified  between  Great  Britain  and  the 
United  States  on  the  5th  of  August,  1846. 

With  r(\gard  to  what  is  set  forth  in  your  letter  as  to  the  possessory 
rights  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  I  hereby  solemnly  protest  against 
such  views  as  almost  entirely  frittering  away  the  very  ample  rights 
secured  to  said  company  by  the  treaty  of  1846,  as  understood  by 
several  of  the  highest  legal  authorities  in  the  United  States  and  British 
North  America.  More  especially  do  I  protest  against  that  view  of  the  case 
which  would  go  to  deprive  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  of  the  right  of 
trading  with  the  Indians,  and  I  conceive  it  in  the  utmost  degree  im- 
probable that  the  high  contracting  parties — the  framers  of  the  treaty — 
ever  couteinp^ted  denying  the  company  one  of  the  most  important 
rights  it  possessed.  Had  such  been  the  intention  of  the  distinguished 
men  who  settled  the  terms  of  the  treaty,  an  exception  would  have  been 
made  as  to  trade  with  Indians  in  the  article  granting  to  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  all  the  rights  they  possessed  at  the  date  of  the  treaty, 
and  inasmuch  as  no  such  exception  was  then  made,  I  contend  that, 
according  to  acknowledged  principles  of  international  law,  subsequent 
restrictions  and  hmitations  cannot  justly  be  sustained. 

Ever  since  the  terms  of  the  treaty  between  Great  Britain  and  the 
United  States,  ratified  August  5,  1846,  became  known  in  this  part  of 
the  world,  I  have  claimed,  on  behalf  of  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricul- 
tural Company,  the  tract  of  country  of  which,  as  farms,  lands,  or  other- 
wise as  property,  the  said  company,  by  its  agents,  was  in  the  sole  and 
exclusive  use  and  occupancy  at  the  date  of  said  treaty,  and  tor  a  long 
time  previously.  I  have  claimed  no  land  abandoned  prior  to  the  date 
of  the  treaty  nor  any  primarily  occupied  subsequently. 

While  on  this  subject,  I  beg  to  call  your  attention  to  sundry  en- 
croachments on  the  company's  rights  by  American  citizens  who,  chiefly 
since  the  year  1850,  despite  my  written  notifications  that  they  were 
trespassing  on  the  company's  lands,  have  settled  on  the  prairies  be- 
tween the  Nisqually  and  the  PruyalHp  rivers,  all  which  are  included 
in  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company's  claim. 

The  evils  thence  arising  are  manifold;  in  some  instances  our  inclosed 
lands  under  cultivation  have  been  taken  possession  of;  more  frequently 
the  rails  forming  our  sheeptblds  and  other  inclosures  have  been  appro- 
priated by  the  settlers,  wno  have  enclosed  and  ploughed  up  all  the  best 
spots  of  pasture  lands. 

They  prevent  our  shepherds  from  pasturing  sheep  near  their  farms, 
and  it  has  long  been  a  custom  with  several  to  shoot  the  company's  cat- 
tle and  even  riding  horses,  when  feeding  near  their  houses  and  enclos- 
ures. 

Another  mischievous  custom,  pretty  generally  adopted,  has  been  to 
hunt  the  company's  cattle  into  the  woods  with  dogs  whenever  herds 
grazing  used  to  aj>proach  a  settler's  fields. 

In  a  considerable  degree  owing  to  the  practices,  our  cattle  have  been 


•I  \ 


I 


1 


WASHINGTON   TERRITORY. 


15 


the 


4 


rendered  much  wilder  than  they  were  in  1846,  when  we  were  in  the 
habit  of  driving  with  ease  cattle  from  the  remotest  corners  of  the  pas- 
ture grounds  into  parks  at  this  place. 

In  tlius  showing  that  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company,  have, 
for  some  years  back,  sustained  great  and  increasing  loss  in  consequence 
of  the  various  encroachments  above  mentioned,  I  must  in  justice  odd, 
that  severrl  persons  settled  on  the  company's  lands  have  exhibited  a 
consideration  and  forbearance  highly  creditable. 

Doubtless  the  settlers  have  complaints  to  make  of  pastures  eaten 
bare  and  fields  invaded  by  the  company's  hve  stock,  but  it  must  be 
borne  in  mind  that  the  company,  by  the  stipulations  of  the  Oregon 
boundary  treaty,  as  well  as  by  provisions  of  the  land  donation  act  in 
force  in  Washington  Territory,  has  the  prior  and  sole  right  still  to  the 
lands  it  has,  by  its  agents,  so  long  occupied. 

I  will  endeavor,  as  soon  as  possible,  to  furnish  you  with  a  cop}--  of 
the  company's  articles  of  agreement,  and  can  produce,  whenever  re- 
quired, proof  of  all  the  ibregoing  statements  relative  to  its  aflairs. 
Submitting  said  statements  to  your  impartial  consideration, 
1  have  the  honor  to  remain,  sir  your  very  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  FRAZER  TOLMIE, 
C  F.  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  a^cnl  Pngel's  Sound 
AgH  Company,  Nis(jually,  Wash'wgton  Territory. 
To  his  Excellency  Isaac  I.  Stevens, 

Governor  of  Washington  Territory  and  SujjU.  of  Indian  Affairs. 


been 


^ 


Olympia,  Washington  Territory, 

January  7,  1854. 

Sir:  In  accordance  with  your  request  \.o  me,  dated  December  J 2, 
1853,  I  proceeded  to  Fort  Vancouver  to  enquire  into  the  nature  and 
extent  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  possessions  at  Fort  Vancouver, 
and  the  Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company's  possessions  at  the 
Cowlitz,  and  make  the  following  report,  to  wit : 

The  extent  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  possessions  at  Fori 
Vancouver,  at  the  date  of  the  treaty  between  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain,  were  certainly  not  greater  than  was  claimed  (ox  them 
by  Mr.  Ballenden,  chief  factor  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  at  Fort 
Vancouver,  in  a  communication  addressed  by  that  gentleman  to  the 
surveyor  general  of  Oregon  Territory,  on  July  30,  1852.  This  tract 
of  country  certainly  embraces  every  acre  of  land  upon  which  a  posses- 
sory right  to  the  land  could  be  claimed.  Within  that  boundary  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  have  a  stockade  fort,  on  the  inside  of  which 
are  ten»houses,  eight  of  which  were  erected  before  the  treaty  of  boun- 
dary between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  and  two  have  been 
erected  since.  There  are  about  twenty  cabins  built  outside  the  en- 
closure, and  a  large  ware-house  near  the  bank  of  the  river.  The  build- 
ings on  the  inside  the  enclosure  are  so  old,  and  the  timbers  and  mate- 
rials of  which  they  are  constructed  so  decayed,  as  render  them  almost 
wholly  valueless.  The  cabins  on  the  outside  the  enclosures  are,  with 
few  exceptions,  built  of  slabs,  and  were  erected  by  the  servants  of  the 


16 


REPORT   OF  GOV.   STEVENS,    OF 


|i  I 


company  for  tlifir  own  convenience  ;  they  are  mostly  old,  dilapidated 
huts,  most  of  which  are  untenanted  and  are  left  to  decay. 

The  lands  in  cultivation  about  Fort  Vancouver  at  the  date  of  the 
treaty  did  not  exceed  two  hundred  and  fifty  acres ;  since  that  time 
many  of  the  enclosures  have  been  broken  up,  and  lands  over  cultivated 
now  all  a  waste.  Above  Fort  Vancouver,  and  near  the  Columbia 
river,  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  have  a  grist  and  saw-mill.  The 
grist-mill  was  erected  in  1836,  and  is  now  worthless,  or  nearly  so,  the 
value  of  which  is  little  if  any  xnore  than  old  machinery.  There  was  a 
new  fnill  frame  erected  at  this  place  in  1847,  that  has  never  been  com- 
pleted or  put  in  operation.  At  this  mill  are  some  other  improvements ; 
there  is  a  store  house  and  miller's  house  ;  these  houses  arc  log  houses 
with  shingle  roofs. 

The  saw- mill  that  is  now  in  operation  was  built  since  the  treaty. 

In  the  vicinity  of  those  mills,  at  the  date  of  the  treaty,  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  had  about  two  thousand  acres  of  land  in  cultivation,  with 
farm  houses,  barns,  &c.  Since  that  time  the  cultivating  land  and 
enclosures  have  been  reduced  to  about  one  thousand  acres,  and  the 
buildings  left  to  dilapidature  and  decay.  These,  as  far  as  1  can  ascer- 
tain, embrace  the  whole  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  improve- 
ments in  the  vicinity  of  Fort  Vancouver,  if  we  except  a  few  sheep- 
pens  that  were  at  one  lime  on  the  possessions  below  the  fort.  These 
have  long  since  been  abandoned. 

I  cannot  estimate  the  value  of  the  improvements  in  and  about  Fort 
Vancouver  at  more  than  the  sum  of  twenty-five  thousand  dollars  ;  the 
improvements  about  the  saw  and  grist-mills,  including  the  mills,  dwell- 
ing-houses, storehouses,  farms,  barns,  &c.,  at  seven  thousand  dollars, 
making  in  all  thirty-two  thousand  dollars. 

To  the  second  inquiry  I  would  state,  that  in  the  vicinity  of  Fort 
Vancouver  the  possessions  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  have  not 
been  increased  snice  the  date  of  the  treaty. 

To  the  third  inquiry  I  would  state,  that  1  think  a  very  considerable 
portion  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  at  Fort  Vancouver,  held  by  them 
at  the  date  of  the  treaty,  have  become  obsolete  by  abandonment.  At 
the  date  of  the  treaty  and  prior  to  that  time  all  the  country  below  Fort 
Vancouver  was  used  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  as  grazing  grounds 
for  their  herds  of  cattle,  sheep,  horses  and  hogs,  with  the  necessary 
huts  to  shelter  their  shepherds  and  herdsmen.  This  section  of  country 
has  been  abandoned  for  this  use  or  any  other  by  the  company  tor  years 
past. 

Their  possessions  in  the  vicinity  of  the  mills  and  mill  plain  have  also 
to  a  great  extent  been  abandoned.  They  have  now  a  few  head  of 
cattle  in  that  vicinity,  driven  down  from  Fort  Wallah  Wallah  last 
summer. 

To  the  fourth  inquiry,  as  "  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  claims  of  set- 
tlers under  the  donation  act  of  the  United  States,  approved  September 
27,  1850,  upon  lands  claimed  by  said  companies,"  1  would  state,  that 
most  of  the  lands  that  are  valuable  tor  agricultural  operations  within 
the  boundaries  claimed  by  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  are  claimed 
and  held  by  settlers  under  said  act. 

The  claim  of  land  upon  which  Fort  Vancouver  stands  is  at  this  time 


J 

i 


V  f. 


* 

'P 


WASHINGTON   TERRITORY. 


17 


f  set- 

mbcr 

that 

imed 

time 


i 

I 


i 


claimed  by  Bishop  Blancheltc,  bisliop  of  Nisqually,  ns  a  Catholic 
mission,  by  virtue  of  a  provision  in  the  act  of  Congress  organizing 
Washington  Territory,  approved  March  3,  1853.  The  bishop  has  no- 
tified the  surveyor  genernl  of  Oregon  of  his  claim,  embracing  six  hun- 
dred and  forty  acres.  The  same  tract  of  land  is  claimed  by  James 
Graham,  chief  clerk  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  at  Fort  Vancou- 
ver, to  the  amount  of  six  hundred  and  tbrty  acres.  Mr.  Graham  is  a 
naturalized  citizen.  There  may  be  other  claims  upon  this  tract  of  land 
by  citizens  under  the  donation  law;  if  so,  I  was  unable  to  find  them. 

The  county  of  Clark  has  ti)r  a  number  of  years  claimed  the  right  of 
pre-emption  to  on(;  hundred  and  sixty  acres  of  this  tract  of  land,  under 
authority  of  nn  act  of  Congress  giving  county  seats  the  right  of  pre- 
emption to  one  hundred  and  sixty  acres  of  land  on  lands  belonging  to 
the  general  government.  The  nnthorities  of  Clark  county,  I  believe, 
have  made  sales  of  lots  to  individuals,  on  this  tract  of  land,  and  re- 
ceived considerable  sums  of  money  ior  the  sjime.  Neither  the  authori- 
ties of  the  county  nor  individuals  have  made  improvements  on  the 
same. 

Over  all  these  claims,  the  United  Slates  have  made  a  military  re- 
scivation  of  six  hundred  and  ii^rty  acres,  embracing  most  of  the  land 
claimed  by  the  conflicting  claimants. 

The  land  claim  immediately  fd)ove,  and  joining  the  above  tract,  is 
claimed  by  Forbes  Barchiy,  as  a  British  subject.  This  tract  embraces 
six  hundred  and  forty  acres.  I  could  not  learn  that  Mr.  Barclay  had 
ever  resided  on  the  land.  Some  years  ago  he  was  acting  physician  for 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  at  Fort  Vancouver,  but  has  tiir  several 
years  past,  and  now  resides  at  Oregon  city,  Oregon  Territory.  I  be- 
lieve he  made  some  improvements  on  this  tract  of  land.  The  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  have  the  principal  part  of  the  cultivating  lands  at 
Fort  Vancouver.  On  this  claim  they  at  present  cultivate  near  two 
hundred  acres  of  land  on  the  same. 

This  same  tract  of  land  is  claimed  by  a  Mr.  Ryan,  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States,  under  the  authority  of  the  donation  law.  Mr.  Ryan 
claims  six  hundred  and  forty  acres ;  has  a  good  farm  house,  and  out- 
houses, &c.     He  has  about  thirty  acres  of  land  in  cultivation. 

The  claim  above  this  is  a  tract  of  six  hundred  and  forty  acres, 
claimed  by  Mr.  Nye,  who  is  an  American  citizen.  The  most  of  the 
improvements  on  this  claim  were  made  by  a  servant  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  for  himself.  He  sold  the  claijn  to  Peter  Skeen  Ogden, 
governor  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  who  transferred  the  claim  to 
Mr.  Switsler.  Switsler  transferred  the  claim  to  Nye.  Nye  has  made 
some  improvements.  On  this  claim  there  are  some  ten  or  twelve  acres 
of  land  enclosed  and  cultivated ;  also,  a  house  and  barn. 

Daniel  Harvy  claims,  (a  British  subject,)  under  the  treaty  of  bound- 
ary between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  a  tract  of  land  about 
four  miles  S()uare,  including  the  grist  and  saw-mills  and  the  mill  plain 
upon  which  is  located  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  farms.  William 
F.  Crate,  who  is  now,  and  has  been  ff>r  some  time,  in  the  employ  of 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Companjs  is  a  naturahzed  citizen,  and  claims  six 
hundred  and  forty  acres  of  land,  including  the  grist-mill,  under  the 
donation  law.  He  has  made  no  improvements.  I  believe,  however, 
Ex.  Doc.  37 2 


18 


REPORT  OP  GOV.   STEVENS,   OP 


there  are  a  house  and  barn,  and  about  fifty  acres  in  cultivation.  Ga- 
briel Barktroth  claims  six  hundred  and  forty  acres  of  land,  under  the 
donation  law,  including  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  saw-mill.  He 
is  a  citizen.  A  part  of  this  claim  is  claimed  by  Mr.  Maxon,  who  is  an 
American  citizen,  and  claims  six  hundred  and  forty  acres  of  land.  His 
dwelling-house  is  on  the  saw-mill  claim.  The  balance  of  Mr.  Maxon's 
claim  is  on  the  Camas  plain,  on  which  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  has 
had  no  improvements.  On  this  plain  a  number  of  Americans  have 
settled,  among  whom  are  Sam.  Predstel,  Thomas  Fletcher,  Levi 
Dothit,  Mr.  Shaw,  John  Predstel,  Valentine  Predstel,  Jacob  Predstel, 
and  Daniel  OUis.  These  persons  have  very  little  improvements  ex- 
cept their  houses. 

Peter  Dunnington  has  the  claim  above  Nye's  on  the  river.  His 
improvements  consist  of  a  house  and  about  six  acres  in  cultivation. 

John  Stringer's  claim,  on  which  are  a  house  and  barn,  and  about 
fifty  acres  in  cultivation. 

The  widow  and  heirs  of  Daniel  V.  Short  claim  six  hundred  and 
forty  acres.  On  this  claim  there  is  a  good  farm  house  and  about  fifty 
acres  in  culiivation.     This  clai;n  was  taken  in  1847. 

George  Maleek,  an  American  citi.ien,  claims  six  hundred  and  forty 
acres  under  the  donation  law.  His  improvements  consist  of  a  dwelling 
house  and  about  thirty  acres  in  cultivation. 

Charles  Prew,  a  naturalized  citizen  and  late  servant  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company,  claims  the  same.  Prew  took  the  claim  in  1849.  He 
quit  the  H.  B.  C.'s  service  in  the  year  1848. 

Maleek  took  his  clain)  in  1848,  and  left  it  and  returned  to  it  again 
in  1851. 

Mr.  Prew  also  holds  the  same  claim  under  a  lease  from  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company. 

Francis  Laframboise,  a  naturalized  citizen,  claims  six  hundred  and 
forty  acres  under  the  donation  law.  His  improvements  consist  of  a 
house  and  barn,  and  about  fifty  acres  of  land  in  cultivation.  Mr.  La- 
framboise  also  holds  as  a  lessee  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

Abraham  Roby  claims  six  hundred  and  forty  acres  under  the  dona- 
tion law.  His  improvements  consist  of  a  house  and  five  acres  of  land 
in  cultivation.  Mr.  Roby  also  holds  as  a  lessee  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company. 

St.  Andrew  claims  six  hundred  and  forty  acres  of  land  under  the 
donation  law.  His  improvements  consist  of  a  house  and  five  acres  of 
land  in  cultivation.  Mr.  St.  Andrew  also  holds  as  a  lessee  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company. 

James  Petram  claims  six  hundred  and  forty  acres  of  land  under  the 
donation  law.  His  improvements  consist  of  a  good  house  and  barn, 
and  about  filty  acres  of  land  in  cultivation.  Mr.  Petram  also  holds  as 
a  lessee  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

Seepleawa  claims  three  hundred  and  twenty  acres  as  an  American 
citizen.  His  improvements  consist  of  a  dwelling  house  and  five  acres 
of  land  in  cultivation. 

Isaac  E.  Bell  claims  six  hundred  and  forty  acres  of  land  under  the 
donation  law.  His  improvements  consist  of  a  dwelling  house  and  five 
acres  of  land  in  cultivation.     Mr.  Bell  is  an  American  citizen. 


» 


s 


WASHINGTON   TERRITORY. 


19 


M 

It 


K 


i 


John  C.  AUman  cltiims  six  hundred  and  forty  acres  of  land  under 
the  donation  law.  His  improvements  consist  of  a  house  and  about 
twenty-five  acres  of  land  in  cultivation. 

This  claim  is  also  claimed  by  Etiward  Spencer,  as  a  British  subject. 
Mr.  Spencer  has  no  improvements,  except  the  square  of  a  log  cabin 
without  roof.     Mr.  S.  has  never  res-ided  on  the  land. 

T.  P.  Dean  and  Malky  claim  each  one  hundred  and  sixty  acres  of 
land  under  the  donation  law.  Their  improvements  consist  of  two 
houses  and  about  ten  acres  of  land  in  cultivation. 

The  above  claim  is  claimed  by  the  heirs  of  Foster,  who  claims  as  a 
British  subject. 

William  H.  Dillon  claims  six  hundred  and  forty  acres  under  the  do- 
nation law.  He  is  an  American  citizen,  and  his  improvements  consist 
of  a  house  and  about  sixty  acres  in  cultivation.  The  same  land  is 
claimed  by  a  Canadian  half-breed  as  a  British  subject. 

David  Sturgess  claims  six  hundred  and  f()rty  acres  of  land  under  the 
donation  law.  His  improvements  consist  of  a  house  aiitl  lliirty-five 
acres  of  land  in  cultivation.  This  land  is  also  claimed  by  George 
Harvey,  a  British  subject,  residing  at  Vancouver's  island.  He  super- 
intended the  salmon  operations  at  this  place  for  the  Hudson's  I3ay 
Company. 

The  company  still  continues  to  take  and  salt  salmon  at  this  place. 
The  company  have  no  improvements  at  this  fishery. 

George  Batty  claims  three  hundred  and  twenty  acres  of  land  under 
the  donation  law.  His  improvements  consist  of  a  house  and  ten  acres 
of  land  in  cultivation. 

James  Bovvers  claims  three  hundred  and  twenty  acres  of  land  under 
the  donation  law.  His  improvements  consist  of  a  house  and  about  ten 
acres  in  cultivation. 

Mr.  Linsey  claims  three  hundred  and  twenty  acres  of  land  under 
the  donation  law.  His  improvements  consist  of  three  or  four  acres  of 
land  in  cultivation,  and  a  house. 

John  Dillon  claims  three  hundred  and  twenty  acres  of  land  under 
the  donation  law.  His  improvements  consist  of  a  house  and  five  acres 
of  land  in  cultivation. 

Ira  Patterson's  claim  is  a  part  on  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's 
claim.  He  claims  three  hundred  and  twenty  acres  of  land  under  the 
donation  law.  His  improvements  are  a  house  and  twenty  acres  of 
land  in  cultivation. 

Samuel  Matthews  claims  three  hundred  an^  twenty  acres  of  land 
under  the  donation  law.  His  improvements  consist  of  a  house  and 
thirty  acres  of  land  under  cultivation. 

Clark  Short  claims  three  hundred  and  twenty  acres  of  land  under 
the  donation  law.     His  improvements  consist  of  a  log  dwelling  house. 

Michael  Trobb  claims  one  hundred  and  sixty  acres  of  land  under 
the  donation  law.     His  improvemepts  consists  of  a  house. 

John  B.  Lee  claims  one  hundred  and  sixty  acres  of  land  under  the 
donation  law.     Improvement  a  house. 

George  Morrow  claims  one  hundred  and  sixty  acres  of  land  under 
the  donation  law.     His  improvement  is  a  house. 


20 


REPORT  OP  GOV.   STEVENS,    OF 


It 


J.  L.  Myers  claims  three  liuiuircd  and  twenty  acres  of  land  under 
the  donation  law.  His  improvements  consist  of  a  house  and  thirty 
acres  of  land  in  cultivation. 

George  Weber  claims  three  hundred  and  twenty  acres  of  land  under 
the  donation  law.  His  improvements  consist  of  a  house  and  eighty 
acres  of  land  in  cultivation. 

Benjamin  Olney  claims  three  liundred  and  twenty  acres  of  land 
under  the  donation  law.  His  improvements  consist  of  a  house  and 
thirty  acres  of  land  in  cultivation. 

Job  Fisher  claims  one  hundred  and  sixty  acres  of  land  under  the 
donation  law.  His  improvements  consist  of  a  house  and  twenty-five 
acres  of  land  in  cultivation. 

William  M.  kSimmons  claims  six  hundred  and  \hny  acres  of  hmd 
under  tlie  donation  law.  His  improvements  consist  of  a  house  and 
ibrty  jicres  of  land  under  cultivation. 

Alexander  Davis  claims  one  liundred  and  sixty  acres  of  land  under 
the  donation  law.  His  improvements  consist  of  a  iiouse  and  thirty 
acres  of  land  in  cultivation. 

Mr.  Pembrun  is  living  on  Ryan's  chiim,  ns  the  lessee  of  Dr.  Barclay, 
who  claims  as  a  British  subject. 

The  improvements  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com[)any  at  the  mouth  of 
the  Cowlitz  consist  of  two  large  warehouses.  These  buildings  were 
erected  betbre  the  treaty,  on  the  bond  claim  of  Seabault,  who  granted 
to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  live  acres  of  land  of  his  claim.  Since 
that  time  Seabault  has  sold  out  his  claim  to  other  parties.  The  build- 
ings are  of  little  value,  as  they  stand  on  the  bank  of  the  Cowlitz  river, 
where  annual  iieshels  arc  wearing  the  bank  so  much  that  the  houses 
will  tumble  in  the  water.  1  do  not  think  the  buildings  are  worth  ex- 
ceeding one  thousand  dolhus. 

The  Puget's  J^ound  Agricultural  Company  claims  a  tract  of  land  at 
what  is  called  the  Cowlilz  Fnrms,  embracing  about  three  thousand 
acres.  The  description  of  the  claim  has  been  filed  in  the  office  ol'  the 
surveyor  general  of  Oregon  Territory,  and  described  by  "rietes  and 
bounds  within  three  limits.  Tiie  company  claims  to  eight  thousand 
acres  of  land,  less  or  more,  of  this  about  fifteen  hundred  acres  are  in 
cultivation,  with  the  usual  buildings,  barns,  &c.  The  buildings  are 
becoming  old  and  dilapid.iled.     The  is  of  but  little  real  vnlue. 

These  improvements  and  lands  I  would  not  value  at  above  twiMity-five 
thousand  dolhus. 

All  of  which  is  resjiectfuUv  submitted. 

ISAAC  N.  EBEY. 

Governor  Stevens. 


t 


I 


Executive  Office, 

Ohjminiii  Jfinuarij  9,  1854. 

Sir  :  1  have  the  honor  U)  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of 
December  20,  setting  fl)rth  the  views  of  the  general  government  of  the 
United  Slates  in  reii-rence   to  the  rights  guarantied  by  the  treaty  of 


WASHINGTON   TERRITORY. 


21 


* 


i 


I 


August  5,  1846,  to  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and  the  Puget's  tSound 
Agricultural  Company. 

Without  intcn(iing  to  (question  at  all  your  right  to  protest  against 
these  views  as  frittering  away  the  very  ample  rights  secured  to  said 
compnny  hy  the  treaty  of*  184(5,  I  iiave  to  state  that  a  course  based 
upon  these  views,  as  indicated  hy  my  letter  of  December  20,  will  be 
strictly  and  firmly  pursued. 

You  especially  protest  against  that  view  of  the  case  which  would 
go  to  deprive  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  of  the  right  of  trading  with 
the  Indians;  and  you  slate  further,  (to  quote  your  own  words:)  "1 
conceive  it  in  the  utmost  degree  improbable  tliat  the  high  contracting 
parties,  the  frameis  of  the  treaty,  ever  contemplated  denying  the  com- 
pany one  of  the  most  important  rights  it  possessed." 

I  conceive  it  to  be  very  clear  that  the  high  contracting  parties  in- 
tended that  no  such  right  should  continue  in  the  Hudson's  Bay  Com- 
pany, from  the  simple  fact  that  they  have  nf)t  guarantied  it  in  the 
treaty,  but  art;  totally  silent  upon  the  subject.  This  is  more  apparent, 
since  you  state  it  to  bt;  one  of  ihe  most  important  rights  it  possessed. 
The  plenipotentiaries  on  the  j)arl  of  (jreat  Britain  certainly  were  not 
entirely  regardless  of  the  interests  or  ignorant  of  the  nature  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company. 

The  treaty  declares  that  in  future  appropriatlo/is  (if  the  territory,  i^t., 
the  jfosscssory  rights  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and  of  all  British 
subjects  who  may  be  in  the  occupotion  of  land  or  other  iiropertij,  lawfully 
acquired  within  the  said  territory,  shall  be  respected.  The  Hudson's 
Bay  Company,  prior  to  the  treaty,  may  have  had  a  right  to  trade  with 
the  Indians.  But  it  is  not  the  rights  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company, 
but  the  2>os'>(^ssori/  rightu  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and  of  all 
British  subjects  who  may  be  in  the  occupation  of  hvid,  that  are  to  be 
respected  in  the  future  appropriations  of  the  territory.  Tiie  Hudson's 
Bay  Company  stand  upon  the  same  l()oting  as  all  British  subjects  in 
the  occupation  of  land.  The  rights  and  privilege's  secured  to  each  are 
the  same.  It  surely  will  not  be  claimed  that  the  right  to  trade  is  a 
possessory  right.  These  arc  terms  of  plain  and  technical  significatior. 
Mr.  Rose,  (jueen's  counsel,  of  Montreal,  dcfuies  this  right  to  be  ".?«c/i 
a  fixed  right  in  the  soil  as  would  in  law  prevent  its  alienation  to  others." 
To  attempt  to  embrace  the  right  to  trade,  as  implied  in  the  expression, 
"possessory  rights,"  would  be  to  negative  the  plain  terms  of  the;  treaty, 
to  admit  all  the  other  rights  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Comp.niy  under  its 
charter,  the  right  to  make  laws  and  to  have  civil  ami  criminal  juris- 
diction; and  the  effect  of  the  treaty  would  be  to  vest  the  sovereignty 
of  the  soil  in  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and  not  in  the  United  States. 

Furthermore,  it  would  have  shown  on  the  part  of  the  United  States 
a  very  great  interest  in  the  welfare  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  to 
have  guarantied  to  a  fijrcign  corporation  a  right  which  the}'  do  not 
grant  to  their  own  citizens,  except  by  special  license. 

You  state  further,  that  ever  since  the  terms  of  the  treaty  became 
known,  you  have  claimed,  on  l)chalf  of  the  I'uget's  Sound  Agricultural 
Company,  the  tract  of  country  of  which  as  farms,  lands,  or  otherwise 
as  property,  the  said  company,  by  its  agents,  was  in  the  sole  and  ex- 
clusive use  and  occupancy  at  the  date  of  the  treaty,  and  lor  a  long 


22       REPOTIT  OF   r.OV.    STEVKNS.    OP   WASIIINT.TON    TEHRITORV. 


tiiin-  pn'vioiisly.     My  letter,  I  <'(m<'t'iv(',  wiis  sii(!i(i(iifly  explicit  in  this 
tuiitter,  nor  do  I  iliink  any  (toiiht  e.'iii  iirise  iVoiii  the  treiity. 

The  tic'ity  does  nut  ediirirm  whiiiever  ynii  m.iy  h;ive  elaiined  trotn 
the  time  the  treaty  Iteeaiiie  ktinwii,  hill  eniiliinis  \\u'  fnrms  and  /nm/siA' 
the  I'liLTl's  Sninid  Ai^iienhiiial  Cninpaiiy.  '*  Kartns  and  lands"  are  well 
iinderstiMid  term-;,  and  all  siieli  as  have  heen  in  the  s(»|e  and  exelnsivo 
use  and  oecnpan.  /nl'tlie  Pii^'et's  Sonnd  ALnieiillnral  ('iini[>any  will  he 
(uinlirnied. 

The  tres|ias>es  and  (»tl'((  i  wrontrs  nl"  uliieli  yun  enmplain  are  matters 
li»r  the  e()inf-=  of  jn-iiu'/',  The  ireaty  is.  and  lias  all  the  lixce  of  ;i  l.iw 
of  IJic  I'nitfd  ,*»ales,  and  i>  sneh  is  lo  he  respected  and  oheyed.  As 
alien  liiends  onr  i  ./nrts  are  iluouti  open  lo  yon,  and  there  yoin"  remedy 
is  to  he  soiiLdit  l()r  the  viohitioii  of  your  ri;/hts. 

In  conclusion,  I  takr  the  liherty  of  airain  calliiitf  yonr  attention  to  ijio 
niiitters  reti'rrcd  to  in  my  letter  of  DcccMnher  'JO,  as  to  the  natnre  and 
valne  of  the  possessions  of  the  llndson"  Day  Company,  and  will  statc^ 
that  I  am  desirons  of  prornriiiLr  inliirmation  as  to  ilii'ir  value,  and  will 
he  ulad  to  reccisc  anv  conuniuiic'ition  trom  you  nu  tliat  suliject. 
I  am,  very  respectfully,  your  (»l)e(licnl  servant, 


William  V.  Tol.mik,  Ks(|. 


ISAAC   I.  STKNKNS. 


ChU'f  Tradrr  Hudson'' s  lltn/  ('onijifitn/. 


.-lirnit  l'iiirr/\'<  Sditiiil  A'^ricult llfdl  Co)ui>(nii/. 


